Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

A failure of principle

More than a few men around the androsphere are disappointed, if not openly disgusted, by former anti-marriage advocate Mark Minter's unexpected announcement of his upcoming nuptuals. Roosh, in particular, was particularly displeased.

He is like the conservative politician who espouses family values
while diddling young boys on the side. He is the PUA who sells products
on how to get laid but can’t even approach a single woman, someone who
creates a false character to gain either money or—in this case—praise,
at the expense of everyone’s trust. For that reason, he has lost all
respect from me. If he were to knock on my door, starving, begging for
food and drink, I would only place the sustenance on my front step. He
would not be permitted to enter my home so that the foul odor of
hypocrisy that now trails him does not infect my place of sleep.

I hope his name will forever be synonymous with a man who doesn’t
live by his own code. He deserves to be permanently exiled from the
manosphere community.

This is an illustrative lesson in the importance of discernment when it comes to those we accept as opinion leaders or even take seriously as commenters. While everyone is fallible, and everyone is capable of changing their minds as they are introduced to new information, Minter's behavior is hypocritical and unprincipled to such an extent that it indicates he never genuinely held the principles he espoused.

The Chateau, on the other hand, is considerably more blase' about the matter:

What a slap in the face this news must be to the barbarian peasants who
incessantly claim CH is about nothing but pumping and dumping bar
skanks. Excuse me, good haters, but I don’t see your blogs resulting in any nuptial engagements.

As for me, I'm not familiar with Minter and I have nothing for or against the man. But I will note that his response to criticism was not only juvenile and disrespectful, it was irrelevant. Minter's vulgar response doesn't provide any rational basis for his massive change of heart, it doesn't even begin to address any of the very criticisms that he himself had previously articulated, or indicate sufficient integrity to admit the way in which his actions belie his previous words.

However, Minter's actions should not have taken so many people by surprise. Very, very few of the writers and commenters in the androsphere are natural alphas. Most are deltas or gammas who embraced Game in order to improve their success with the opposite sex, and as such, both their rhetoric and socio-sexual personas tend to be exaggerated to some degree. Again, being unfamiliar with him, I can't say to what extent that was true of Minter, but it appears to have been a considerable amount, since so readily he abandoned his oft-professed principles for a mid-thirties divorcee.

I sincerely wish Mr. Minter and his bride-to-be well. I hope their marriage works out well for everyone involved. I suspect they have a better shot than many given that his fiance is familiar with many of the potential pitfalls involved. But I also hope that Minter understands that he is finished as an individual who merits being taken seriously by the androsphere. Like Edward VIII of England, Mark Minter will henceforth serve as a cautionary example of how readily men are capable of sacrificing their honor, their integrity, and their credibility for love of a woman. One hopes that Mr. Minter will have the sense to follow the Duke of Windsor's lead in stepping away from participation in the public discourse.

I don't think one should be too harsh on Minter for violating his former principles. This is hardly the first time a man has done something out of the ordinary for love. Let the man live and love in peace and privacy. However, if he attempts to continue to maintain his position as an outspoken figure in the androsphere, it would be hard for anyone to be too harsh on him.

72 comments:

Anonymous
said...

It also shows why you shouldn't elevate someone to leadership / spokesman positions when they have achieved nothing and proven nothing. He was literally all talk.

Once the indignation has died down these manosphere followers need to introspect on why they took a guy so seriously who was nothing but hot air. Were they so desperate for a leader? Where they drawn to the fact he parroted and parsed their anger in particularly strident fashion?

I'm kind of getting the impression that the "manosphere" is little more than the testosterone fuelled ravings of a bunch of men who can't let go of the past.

So Mark Minter wants to get married. Who cares? Did he used to believe that marriage was evil? Yes? Again, who cares?

Are we supposed to defend to the death positions we once held just because we once held them? Are we never supposed to reconsider our position in light of new evidence? Are we never allowed to change our minds?

If he were saying now that all marriage is evil and no man should marry, then went and got married anyway, that could be hypocritical. However if he was saying that a year ago, but saying something else now, then he has simply changed his mind.

Nominating a hurt and angry man as a spokesman for a movement seems foolish to me. Anger doesn't last forever, and hurts fade. Passionate denunciation of marriage and women in general tapers off to denunciation of some specific women, and then perhaps some respect for some women.

It appears that Minter has found a woman with sufficient admirable qualities that he will take a chance on marrying her. Good luck to them.

Are we supposed to defend to the death positions we once held just because we once held them? Are we never supposed to reconsider our position in light of new evidence? Are we never allowed to change our minds?

No. No. No. But you're missing the point. There is no new evidence. And we are never supposed to reconsider our position in light of the fact that a woman wants to have sex with us.

On the other hand, I understand the anger too. I mean, MGTOWs were probably thinking, here's an articulate man ready for prime-time. He's going to be our spokesman, we're going to put him on talk shows, on radio interviews, on...

No. No. No. But you're missing the point. There is no new evidence. And we are never supposed to reconsider our position in light of the fact that a woman wants to have sex with us.

Was there any evidence to support his original position, other than being divorce-raped by his ex? He was hurt, angry, and lashing out. Very non-alpha/sigma as you say.

A woman wanting to have sex with him, or perhaps more offering a comforting hand, is precisely the thing that would change his mind given those premises.

We sometimes come to positions for non-rational reasons and leave them for non-rational reasons. Indeed, as you say, we tend to be rationalising creatures more than rational ones.

Those of us who aren't natural alphas/sigmas, who might possibly rise to higher beta in time, may end up "locking down" a woman because we don't have a huge range of options. Of course we should all learn enough Game to never act like we don't have options. :-)

It would seem that there is collectivization even within the manosphere.

I've never been impressed with the hook-up nature of the manosphere. I've seen enough natural Alphas in my life to know that a lot of them end up being full of it.

Besides that, I've read how they are critical of women for riding the cock carousel, even going so far as to say it destroys civilization, yet boast about their sexual escapades. Is that not hypocrisy? If they want to save civilization, they are doing their best to help destroy it.

I'm not saying they should get married, but at the same time they have no right to criticize sluts when they would gladly bed them at any given opportunity.

I have always said that arguing logically with a creature ruled by emotions and fueled with the knowledge that the louder the express their emotions, the less I care to make any kind of point with them, is at best a losing proposition.

The conundrum is best expressed by the Psalmist:

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

And verse 5 : Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Minter's rage is reminiscent of the tail end of a woman's lost arguments. I am guessing he will follow with things like, " I guess I am just stupid then!" and "Well, looks like it is my fault AGAIN!!" or (my personal favorite) "You just think you are so smart." (only compared to some, princess...)

Much like with women, I would think it is better to learn that everyone will disappoint you eventually, and move on.

Most men don't like PUA Game. They may study it, may use it skillfully. And despise themselves for doing so. Detest having to be that manipulative.

I'm convinced that most men actually want a happy marriage. One that might require a bit of Courtship/Marriage Game for preventive maintenance, but doesn't demand the wholesale manipulation of PUA Game.

And many PUA Game advocates will trade it in for a wife and C/M Game in a heartbeat.

Had no idea who this Minter guy was, but a little googling turned this up, which includes commentary from his ex-wife. It was posted by someone who's obviously hostile to the manosphere, and who knows if all (or any) of what the ex says is true. But if it is, then it sounds like Minter's some combination of hypocrite, liar, and/or screwball. This will hopefully serve as an object lesson in the wisdom of putting much stock in the way people present themselves on the 'net.

I find the PUA side interesting, but only as far as the human interaction goes. I have no interest in spending my life as a rogue. Maybe if I knew about that life before I was married I might have spent more years pursuing it, but now I read their blogs for the two reasons - (better) gaming my wife, and keeping my daughter away from guys like that.

I read red-pill blogs for much the same reason, but more for my own edumacation and sanity. Before I found Vox's site I was as close to considering myself a societal anomaly as one can be. Now I know that I was not an anti-social, mean spirited, argumentative woman hater, I was red-pill (if an angry red pill, so be it, but the discovery of the androsphere has mellowed out that part)

I have found many sites through Alpha Game Plan and I havent found anything stated by Minter that was not stated better somewhere else.

By the by, I was reading Vox through WND (working my way through his better-than-mine grasp of logic) when I clicked on the AGP link on the side of his other blog.

There were bound to be frauds and liars in the manosphere. I doubt Mark Minter will be the last one either. If what his ex-wife said is true, then he's just a loser acting like a lion and probably an insufferable jerk to boot. It sounds to me that he latched on to the manosphere because of its criticism of the divorce laws in our country.

Minter sounds more like a Gamma. Alphas don't go to foreign countries just to get laid nor do they marry women (if they do marry) they've never met.

It sounds more and more like he wasn't a hypocrite but a liar. And secondly, let's all just remember that we need not hang on the words of other men just because they validate our feelings. That's what women do.

The manosphere is full of losers with big mouths that know it all. The few that have some success in life are narcissists. It's a collection of fucked up people.

Look at the lifestyle. The "leaders" are people like Krauser, who trot up and down the street for hours a day hitting on scores of women who can barely speak a word of English in an effort to get them to let him blast on their face. Or Roosh, who flies half way around the world to sleep with the kind of women who wouldn't give him the time of day in his hometown, even though they're only 6's. And then he praises their "femininity" and lauds their marriage worthiness and dumps them the next day.

And the whole delusion of game. It's either charm or dominance or hitting the gym or a numbers game or not responding to texts right away or slapping your wife on the ass and smirking like a chimp. Everyone believes in it but no one can even tell you what it is.

Simply, the manosphere is a collection of dorks who revere "The Matrix".

Having never heard of him (as I'm not particularly drawn to the PUA, women-hating side of TRP), but from the little background presented here on the man, it seems he's just another embittered victim of divorce, but it is likely that he was a primary cause of a weak and failed marriage, if what his ex-wife said is true, that he could never hold down a job, etc.

A man's inability to work is a sign to me of a man who can't lead.

If true, he scored a chick from the internet, and may have not met her face-to-face. That also reeks of a pathetic man. Sure, she's supposedly half his age, but I very much doubt that this marriage will ever happen, and will probably not succeed with the rate of man this person seems to be.

I agree, there are a lot of pathetic men who both lead and follow the manosphere, but there's folks like Dalrock and VD who stand apart, and the readers from both sites have a bit more substance than the PUAs.

rmaxgenactivepua said... Mark Minters not a PUA or hardcore gamer, he's more of a MGTOW or MRA

Alot of MGTOW & mra's are...

Almost all MGTOW and MRAs are bitter-pill Gammas. They complain life is hard and unfair if you're a man. No kidding. Is it harder to be a man today than it was 200 years ago? I doubt it. I'll take a woman complaining I left the seat up on a flush toilet over an outhouse and getting bit on the balls by a black widow spider any day (pre-20th Century approx. 25% of black widow spider bites were to men's privates while using the outhouse...)

Gammas, being mentally women, respond by complaining about adversity instead of confronting it. And like women, they're prone to apex fallacies, thinking there was some golden age when the average guy lived like Lord Whatshisname on Downton Abbey.

Gammas, being mentally women, respond by complaining about adversity instead of confronting it. And like women, they're prone to apex fallacies, thinking there was some golden age when the average guy lived like Lord Whatshisname on Downton Abbey.

And, I suppose, like women, Gammas change their minds on a whim.

They do seem to be the closest male equivalent to Team Woman. Maybe they're angry because he left their in-group and they are taking it as personal rejection?

I am reminded of Benedick's words from Much Ado About Nothing (Act II, end of Scene III):

I may chance have someodd quirks and remnants of wit broken on me, because I have railed so long against marriage: but doth not the appetite alter? a man loves the meatin his youth that he cannot endure in his age. Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets ofthe brain awe a man from the career of his humour?No, the world must be peopled. When I said I woulddie a bachelor, I did not think I should live till Iwere married.

I'd be surprised if there are any natural alphas writing in the manosphere, since alphas usually don't know how they do what they do. It just seems obvious to them. The guys who understand it well enough to explain it to others tend to be betas and deltas who learned game -- sometimes by observing alphas -- and either internalized it or learned to fake it. But I doubt that a natural beta or delta, no matter how much he internalizes game, ever becomes a natural alpha, because having a skill come easily from practice is never the same thing as having it come from instinct.

I just wrote more about this on my own blog, but it seems to me that most MGTOW aren't committed to that permanently. They may think they are, but most aren't really committed to living the rest of their lives without women. At some point, shouting the MGTOW slogan will get the worst of the anger out of his system, and he'll meet a cutie who doesn't seem like the bitches who sent him GTOW in the first place, and he drifts from the "movement." I suspect that actually describes most MGTOW, but when it happens to one who has prominently declared a hard-line MGTOW stance, the hypocrisy is naturally going to draw well-deserved criticism.

"The general principle that marriage is a bad deal for men does not mean that marriage is always bad for all men."

Or maybe, given the current conditions men are forced to work with and the lies women have been sold, marriage is extremely challenging for men and likely to end in disaster? But from what I know of many men, "extremely challenging and likely to end in disaster" rarely convinces them to reject a worthy goal for long.

Vox at least allows for the possibility of marriage being considered as a worthy goal for men, while some of the others do not. I don't listen to the others much because there's a lie hidden in there, and lots of injuries from women that may cloud their judgment. There are also religious and spiritual reasons for marriage that some of the other do not subscribe to.

I've been mgtow my whole life basically. I was wrestling with the big existential questions and didn't have time for women. The one time I got involved with a girl happened without my knowledge of what was occurring until i was done for. Otherwise I would probably have stopped it. My idea of mgtow isn't political or philosophical, but just the question of whether a even a good marriage that is extremely unlikely to end in divorce is worth it. What can a man hope to get from an ideal marriage, much less a decent marriage by contemporary standards? Tracy at fisheaters.com gave me the best answer I've heard to that question. So I'm mgtow but trying to talk myself into the possibility of a fun, satisfying marriage. Long but good quote from Tracy aka Vox Clamantis:

"I think men and women want, deep down, the same thing: they want family, love, children, grandchildren, to pass on their genes, to have a sense of accomplishment, to be effective, to make a mark on the world, peace, intimacy, someone to grow old with, etc. And that's what men and women give each other: a future through their children. A family to enjoy and get support from in old age. A sense of having given to the world through their children. And so forth.

In the traditional family, women made a home and did most of the child-raising, and men brought home the bacon. Both were faithful and both got what they needed in order to have a family. I don't like overly rigid sex roles and see lots of room for individualty, thinking that couples can work out the details of things for themselves (who does the cooking? who does the cleaning? who works outside the home?), but each sex brought something to the table -- income, household labor, etc. Nowadays, though, too many women think that anything domestic is "slavery" or "not feminist" or whatever. It's ridiculous.

In the past, aside from children, what women gave to men was sex. Now with the sexual revolution and women giving the milk away for free, that's off the table as something women give (i.e., themselves). The "Pill" and other forms of contraception, and abortion along with changing sexual mores have taken sex away as an enticement for marriage for men (and women).

Today's marriage laws, in essence, take men by the balls and allow women to squeeze hard any time they're "bored" or unhappy or whatever. No-fault divorce, the almost automatic custody of children granted to women, and the raping of men's wallets have turned men into nothing much more than sperm donor ATM machines.

So, given the last two things mentioned above, I'd say that marriage isn't a good idea for men UNLESS pre-nups and a sort of "covenant marriage" situation were in place. A man has to cover his ass nowadays, that's the bottom line.

If you don't want family and an old age with someone and all of that, then there's nothing in marriage for you, I don't think. You might change your mind when you're older, though...

In order to fix things overall, though, women and men have to take sex more seriously, with women being the "gatekeepers." Women have to keep their legs closed until marriage, IOW, just like the Church teaches (for both sexes). No-fault divorce has to be gotten rid of entirely. Men should not be expected to pay for children born outside of marriage. Abortion needs to be outlawed. Custody laws have to be revisited. Government welfare has to stop bailing single mothers out. Both sexes have to wake up and learn to respect the complementary sex. Until those things change, we're screwed. You ever read "The Garbage Generation"? : http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

@yttik: But from what I know of many men, "extremely challenging and likely to end in disaster" rarely convinces them to reject a worthy goal for long.________

It really depends on the risk vs rewards as to whether the goal is worth it. It's one thing to risk breaking one's arm, it's quite another to risk severing that same arm.

In marriage, men don't just risk a painful breakup and half their assets. They risk loss of their children, all their assets, and a chunk of their future income to support another man shagging their once wife.

Couple that with the fact that you get far more respect and sex from your girlfriend than you do from that same woman when she is your wife, and it's not worth risking a limb.

I marriaged because I wanted children and wanted them raised with a married mom and dad. But I also knew when it happened that my sex life and financial stature would take a huge hit, and they did. I'm no alpha and can't pull off pretending. I don't regret my decision, but men who dont take the plunge are not refraining out of immaturity either.

yttik, you are becoming likeable. Thank you for your willingness to listen and discuss

".Today's marriage laws, in essence, take men by the balls and allow women to squeeze hard any time they're "bored" or unhappy or whatever.."

But today's laws do so much more harm than that. Men and women are the same species but we mostly speak an entirely different language. What our courts and our cultural shift has done is nearly erased our ability to communicate with each other entirely. Communication is the key to marriage. Vox once said that women just need to ask men for what they want, rather then playing all kinds of silly games or shrieking. But we can't do that, because most of the time we have no idea what we really want because of lies, lots and lots of lies, that we are sold. Vox also once said, women should appeal to a man's better nature if they want something, well, we've been sold a bill of goods that suggest you guys have no better nature. Our loyalty to men has now been seduced away by the system which will allegedly protect us from you, because you are innately evil.

Those are some ways women have been rendered unable to communicate with men. Men have also been victimized by some pretty insidious things. Men are not supposed to put their hands on women at all without our permission. But most women communicate that way, we need to feel you. We're more intuitive. A cold rational argument just isn't going to cut it. We'll hate you and think you're well, cold and rational.

I cut myself off, sorry. The thing about marriage for men is that you are going to have to figure out how to communicate with a woman who will likely have no fricken clue what she wants, has been brain washed into believing it's anything but you, and if you so much as touch her without permission, you're being abusive and now risk going to jail. Another lie women have been sold is that all unwanted or uninvited touching by men is abuse. It's hard for us to see how gentle you are being. We often can't see how well you are restraining yourself, because we have been told over and over again that you are capable of great evil. A light hand on our shoulder is now perceived as an automatic precursor to some extreme act of violence. Even if you're gentle, you're potentially violent, so that becomes the same thing.

As to a man's stuff, his money, his ability to provide for a family, given our current laws, he doesn't even have the right to give us this great gift, to work himself to death providing for us, because it's already ours the moment he acquires it.

Lastly, women are going to play what men usually call mindgames. You're going to have to accept it, expect it, and prepare for it.

The thing about marriage for men is that you are going to have to figure out how to communicate with a woman who will likely have no fricken clue what she wants...

This. Seconded.

women are going to play what men usually call mindgames. You're going to have to accept it, expect it, and prepare for it... and I'm in the pro-marriage camp. Marriage is good for men.

Agree 100%. This is why men MUST fitness test women. Demand a marriage without a license. Demand a contractual marriage. Demand she put it all in writing in front of her father and the rest of her family and church.

Marriage is only good for men when the man is married to a good woman.

"Marriage is only good for men when the man is married to a good woman."

Okay, but remember there's a reason a virtuous woman's price is above rubies. She's very rare, so rare, the question is also asked, "and who can find her??" The rest of us are simply a rather ordinary mix of good and bad. You don't want to fall into the trap of believing that if you just find a good woman and be a good man, all will be well. Without some knowledge of Game and how it's played, or at least some good instincts, you'll soon find yourself complaining about how she's changed. You won't understand how you started out with this perfect woman, married her, and watched her turn into a shrew.

I didn't say any of that. Consider that back in the day, back when that proverb was written, there was a lot of temple prostitution going on. Lots of high-N sluts running around. Places change, faces change, times change, technology changes... but people stay the same. The only argument might be that due to entropy people are getting worse.

Having said that, perhaps you'd admit that God knew what He was doing when He designed a structure in which women were controlled under the authority of their father up until the day they were given to a man in marriage, at which point they were under his authority. It wasn't until they were significantly older (at which point their husband died before them) that they were released from being under authority.

That structure that God ordained is designed to allow ordinary men and ordinary women to have successful marriages. The function follows the form. In today's environment, there is a much heightened need for a good woman in order to have a good marriage because the structure has nearly been eviscerated.

I know you didn't say any of that. It's just that I cringe every time I hear the term "good woman," because I've watched so many men think they've found her and then it all goes downhill. Sometimes it's even more painful to watch because men will blame themselves, especially if she was good to begin with.

"Having said that, perhaps you'd admit that God knew what He was doing.."

Game is not the highest pursuit in life. Not even close. Having a family trumps all of it. In the long run you are bettered by becoming a father rather than being an aging PUA.

And being a father is very, very anti-game. Your wife may be that mythical perfect woman who reveres you and does everything right, but the moment her first child is born it all changes on a dime - if you are lucky. From that moment onward you and her become vastly demoted in concern, for both of you. You become parental partners, not merely lovers.

That's a positive development if you can get it. The day does come, should come if you are healthy, to say goodbye to the rush of game.

I'd be surprised if there are any natural alphas writing in the manosphere, since alphas usually don't know how they do what they do. It just seems obvious to them...

Not true. "Alpha" is simply one aspect of a man's mental makeup. A very significant one for sure, but it's not an inclusive definition of all his traits. Some Alphas are very smart, others are dumb as stumps (Vladimir Putin vs the guy in Cellblock D). Some are selfish jerks, others are community-minded who honestly want to make things better for their devoted followers (just so long as they're "devoted" anyway...). Pretty much every Alpha wants to bang anything that's hot*, but variety is a high priority for some while others are willing to settle for high frequency and quality from a single woman.

So some alphas are clueless about what they're doing, but others are very perceptive and fully realize what makes them different from the Betas and Gammas they see slogging through life. In particular, since so much of our feminized culture tries to emasculate men, the more perceptive of the breed are very aware of the lies being sold to and swallowed by their Beta brothers.

* technically every man wants to do this, but Alphas realize they actually have the opportunity

the moment her first child is born it all changes on a dime - if you are lucky. From that moment onward you and her become vastly demoted in concern, for both of you. You become parental partners, not merely lovers.

INCORRECT.

Having a child does certainly require some changes in your life, but the proper relationship is "Junior is my son", not, very much not, "I am Junior's father."

YOU are still the person in charge, and your identity remains your property. Subsuming it into fatherhood is the ultimate GAMMA move. Doing that is disastrous for your life, your marriage, and for the emotional development of your children.

Incorporate your children into your life, don't abandon your life to be a fucking helicopter parent.

Incorrect again. There is no end of game. Well, the silly sort done by PUAs maybe, but that don't signify anyway, even before kids.

Many a man has run his marriage onto the rocks by letting the arrival of his offspring sap his masculinity. 'Domestic Bliss' is a fine refuge to retreat to now and then for a little relaxation, but you can't take an extended vacation there.

The sort of 'game' that is represented by masculine behavior and attitudes, confidence, mastery, and a desire to bend the world to your will must continue. PUA crap is a mimicry of that and, well, frankly, if PUA game and not your innate personality got you the wife, well, you probably really need to keep it up if you don't want her to fall out of love with you.

No, kids don't change you. You make accommodations and even sacrifices to incorporate them into your lives and provide for their needs and development, but their mother is still going to need you to make her feel like a woman that can spark some flame in a desirable man.

@Amok "YOU are still the person in charge, and your identity remains your property. Subsuming it into fatherhood is the ultimate GAMMA move. Doing that is disastrous for your life, your marriage, and for the emotional development of your children."

What is the point of having a hierarchy as VD constructed if we are going to basically retreat to the original Alpha/Beta binary model? Following the threads on AG lately indicates that negative traits are assigned to Gammas and the positive ones to Alphas. If you act as a white knight... gamma. Fall into the pitfall of basing your identity on your children... gamma. Unless we are creating a new hierarchy that does not match up with the AG definitions.

What are the major traits of gammas? "...the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter... usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them... alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex...obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends... sexual rejects..."

What about that matches up with the common change in a marital dynamic when children are introduced?

What are the traits of a delta: "...normal guy...the great majority of men...he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her...Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta...like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them."

So white knighting or praising women is more indicative of the common Delta which is the category containing MOST men.

Bad |= GammaMost normal range behaviors are indicative of Delta

Mark Minter may very well be a Gamma based on the love/hate thing.

Subsuming your identity to your child is hardly the ultimate gamma move... stalking until you get a restraining order would probably place higher on that list.

"YOU are still the person in charge, and your identity remains your property. Subsuming it into fatherhood is the ultimate GAMMA move. Doing that is disastrous for your life, your marriage, and for the emotional development of your children."

It's true. My husband completely lost himself when our children were born...for about a week. Mothers often do this too, but for the well being of the kids and the family, you have to snap out of it. Your identity is going to be even more important at this point.

"Family means the end of game, not the end of self."

Much of what is wrong with our families right now can be attributed to abandoning Game when children arrive.

He is in his late 50's and found a cute 34 year old who is a participant of the Manosphere, as such, she might be worth the risk and at his age, he might see that this is as good as it gets. Maybe he's not hypercritical, but rather he understands the risks and decides to take a punt regardless. He is not in his 20's after all. I say good on him and I hope it works out for them both

nah, not buying it about a critical need for game. Game is about getting laid and the socio-sexual constructions surrounding said purpose. Nothing more. Yes, it is interesting and somewhat unsettling when you realize the astounding utility of game in analyzing the whole gamut of human behavior. It seems a whole lot more than ought can be explicated in terms of a little girl game, who gets laid.

"..nah, not buying it about a critical need for game. Game is about getting laid...."

That's what I thought, too, until I started reading Vox's perspective. Many others do present Game as simply a tool to get laid.

This will sound fanciful and romantic and terribly female, but Game has a far greater purpose then what it looks like on the surface. I am only just starting to understand all the implications, so I can't yet express it properly.

Regardless, knowledge is power, so at the very least people should try to understand Game, so they aren't blindsided by the world. Life, relationships, are a lot less painful if you have some kind of map.

It's about retaining a woman's interest and respect. Those are somewhat critical to getting laid, but they're also critical to preventing a wife from falling out of love with her husband, cheating on him, divorcing him, and wandering off with his kids, money and self-respect.

"Game", whether it's natural instinct, learned behavior, or a combination of both, is what men who's wives still love them after seven years of marriage do.

It's about retaining a woman's interest and respect. Those are somewhat critical to getting laid, but they're also critical to preventing a wife from falling out of love with her husband, cheating on him, divorcing him, and wandering off with his kids, money and self-respect."

In other words its a rational response to an imbalance of power. A way to nuzzle up to the party with actual power in the hope that she won't move the legal system to destroy you.

In the past, when men had legal power, women tried to figure out how to nuzzle up to men by dressing modestly, not sleeping around, keeping a feminine appearance, etc. Difference being men used that power to keep society together and women use it to rip it apart.

"But only as long as you keep up the game though. Drop it and the payback would be swift."

I'm not so sure about that. If Game has been going on long enough, it's almost ingrained into everyone. I'm thinking of the way grown children look at a father who no longer has any power over them, but has earned their undying respect anyway.

I have an inkling of how hard it must be for men today, having to use their instincts, practically having to read women's minds that are always changing, having to try and discover what she wants when she doesn't even know herself, and than one misstep, one false calculation, and you can lose everything.

Things are bad, I get that, but this is still an ancient dance. Even when women have no power, they have their ways. In the olden days she could have poisoned you, had you killed, set you up in some evil way. It's likely that women understood men better, had more respect for them, but it's still not fool proof.

In other words its a rational response to an imbalance of power. A way to nuzzle up to the party with actual power in the hope that she won't move the legal system to destroy you.

Fucking gammas....

Women have always been the ones who make the decisions on sexual access, regardless of what the legal system says. Why do you think those barbarian arabs sultans castrated their harem guards? A failed effort to keep their "powerless" women from making choices about sexual access.

"Game", which is largely about social dominance, is what makes women gladly, gleefully, open up their legs for a man. Humans being a part of the world as we are, there's lots of fraud with social dregs mimicking enough of the trigger behaviors to fool many women, but that's nothing new.

"Game" is another way of saying "acting like a man", and oddly enough, that's what most women really want - a guy who acts like a man. Do that and she's happy. Don't do that, and she'll look for whatever tools are available to her to get out. There were plenty of game-less husbands living miserable lives back "when men had legal power."

Nobody else is going to do your work for you. No law is going to remove your obligation to earn respect, love and devotion. No law ever has, no law ever could.

Wrong, so wrong. Lots and lots of high quality sex is a side effect of game, a fringe benefit, a reward for a job well done. The other accomplishments that come from a good game are so far reaching and profound, it's hard to find all the words to describe it.

My husband hasn't just delivered the world an extremely happy wife and four sane kids, he's created and produced a business, improved his community, cleaned up the neighborhood. It's like throwing a rock into a pond and watching the ripples spread. What he has produced and created may not have come to be without game. Rather than half killing himself gaming us all, I suppose he could have sat around playing video games and watched the world go to seed. When I think of no game, I think of places like Detroit and the inner city. Gameless wastelands.

Women have always been the ones who make the decisions on sexual access, regardless of what the legal system says."

And being somewhat rational they accommodate their decisions to the legal system. Game may be powerful but it can't replace legal patriarchy. The sultan could execute an unfaithful wife. Today a man can't even take his children from her.

" Don't do that, and she'll look for whatever tools are available to her to get out. There were plenty of game-less husbands living miserable lives back "when men had legal power.""

And yet their marriages remained intact and everyone benefitted despite the suppsed lack of game. Because social dominance was built into the system. Now codified game has appeared as a rational response to the new imbalance of power, like I said. It's currently the most effective way to get what you need or want from women and to avoid being robbed of your children and indentured to an ex wife.

" When I think of no game, I think of places like Detroit and the inner city. Gameless wastelands."

Judging by the huge numbers of illegitimate children, women with children by multiple fathers, and abortions, those guys probably are running some really effective game. But what they don't have are a right to their children and exclusive access to a woman. Nobody else has that either and that's why the rest of the country is slowly going to look more and more like inner cities over time.

I'm totally asexual. If I never had sex again in my life I wouldn't miss it. I find that liberating. I feel empowered, free, liberated.

I am immune to these little girl games.

We are all so very proud of you. Now Vox is going to need to find a new letter in the Greek alphabet beyond Omega.

Weouro:

The law is certainly broken these days, but it is only one aspect of our culture that is broken, and frankly is a trailing indicator. Laws reflect the culture they serve. There is a feedback loop where laws can - to a degree - influence the culture, but primarily the arrow goes the other way. Cultures create the laws they want.

Then it's a chicken/egg scenario, until you trace it back to prehistory. According to the book I'm reading the default state of Man is matriarchal and is based on the biological link of mother to child. Patriarchy was imposed by law in the recent past by super-dominant men, such as Hammurabi, limiting the sexual license of women and rewarding them with increased security and prosperity. And limiting a man's freedom but rewarding him with legal rights to a woman and the children he sires with her. Codified game is a guide for how not to get as screwed over in the returning matriarchy while propping up isolated enclaves of patriarchy.

Maybe you're right about that, I don't know. To be clear though the matriarchy he describes isn't a positive system of governance but more like the ghetto dwellers today. It's only matriarchal at the family level and it doesn't progress far enough to even be able to wage war or conquer neighboring people. And it doesn't cultivate any initiative in men to do much of anything. Patriarchy is responsible for all of the advances humans made toward civilzation including written language. So all recorded history has patriarchy, but prehistory extends back in time farther than we can know and humans were static and uncivilized that whole time because patriarchy hadn't really taken hold.

Patriarchy is responsible for all of the advances humans made toward civilzation including written language...

I would characterize Patriarchy as necessary but not sufficient. By itself it does not lead to civilization, though civilization is indeed impossible (to create or sustain) without it.

Ghetto societies are matriarcal, but they don't exist in isolation. They are parasites on a larger civilization that used to be patriarchal and still has some reserve capacity left to support the parasitical culture as the larger host slowly disintegrates.

End welfare and other involuntary transfers of wealth into the ghettos and their culture would be gone within a generation, either wiped out, starved out, or transformed into a thuggish patriarchy sending bands of raiders out to prey on the surrounding people and coming home to harems and astonishingly vulgar forms of "court intrigue" from their women.

My God, can you imagine the intrigues of the Roman Empire, but carried out by people two standard deviations lower on the IQ scale? It would be... well, a lot like an old episode of COPS I think.

Well it's possible the book is simply designed with a healthy amount of rhetoric to persuade feminists. It's not a history. It's purpose I think is to convince modern women they'd be better off with patriarchy, which they would be, regardless what the truth about history is. So maybe the author lets the idea of an ancient matriarchy stand while still moving the reader toward patriarchy.

I don't know anything about Minter other than what I got second hand: that he was an outspoken rageball with a hate-on for marriage who ended up marrying a single mother whose CH handle was somethingGeisha.

In other words, he was a horny, lonely, need, angry guy who had gone through a bad divorce and ended up falling for a female who, judging from her handle and her venue, probably portrayed herself as submissive, man-pleasing and Not Like Those Horrible Feminist Chicks. Awful seductive, those single mothers, when they need to be.